PBS Colorado 911 Explosive Evidence

[Glenn Quagmire]

It was probably just one guy...


View attachment 9945

 

[777 fixer]

Oh really , Amazing Kreskin!
What make you think the hi-jackers plan was not known about, months in advance, giving the powers that be "AMPLE" time to wire said buildings ?

 
Are you accusing a republican administration of treason?

 

[Ms Tree]

Either that or he is accusing US intelligence and military of complicity in the murder of over three thousand people on US soil.

All this with out a shred of evidence.

 

[777 fixer]

 
Just because I can't give you a blueprint of how they did it doesn't negate the fact that on this planet we obey the laws of physics.  

 
How convenient.  Can't come up with a logical reason as to why someone would want to do this so you fall back on "laws of physics"
Well, by definition if something  goes against the laws of physics then it could not have happened.  Kills your argument doesn't it?
Whatever argument it may be.

 

[777 fixer]

 
Explain building seven then....

 
How about structural damage from tons of debris falling on it.  You see the links traderjake provided saying that other buildings caught fire and did not collapse did not mention that.  That's typical of people who subscribe to this sort of stuff.  Leaving out key facts because including them would not support their argument. 

 

[700UW]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html
 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542

 

[Ms Tree]

Just because I can't give you a blueprint of how they did it doesn't negate the fact that on this planet we obey the laws of physics.

Blue print? You can't even provide a thumb nail sketch on a napkin.

 

[delldude]

 
How about structural damage from tons of debris falling on it.  You see the links traderjake provided saying that other buildings caught fire and did not collapse did not mention that.  That's typical of people who subscribe to this sort of stuff.  Leaving out key facts because including them would not support their argument. 

 
Like I said, NIST said they found no explosive residue. The Architect group did in fact find explosive residue.....explain that away.

 

[777 fixer]

 
Like I said, NIST said they found no explosive residue. The Architect group did in fact find explosive residue.....explain that away.

So a small group of kooks with an obvious agenda says they found explosive residue and offers no real evidence of said claim.  Must be true.

 

[delldude]

So a small group of kooks with an obvious agenda says they found explosive residue and offers no real evidence of said claim.  Must be true.

 
Funny, the video I saw showed the evidence displayed by a electron microscope and displayed the elements via spectrochromatographic examination.

 

[777 fixer]

Once again, just because a small group of kooks says something is true does not mean it is.  Did they bother to explain how these explosives were planted without building security or the thousands of people who worked there noticing?
 
Probably the most important question is why.  Why would anybody want to do this?  Because it makes no logical sense.  Not that logic matters to CT wackos.

 

[delldude]

Once again, just because a small group of kooks says something is true does not mean it is.  Did they bother to explain how these explosives were planted without building security or the thousands of people who worked there noticing?
 
Probably the most important question is why.  Why would anybody want to do this?  Because it makes no logical sense.  Not that logic matters to CT wackos.

 
Your bunch of highly educated professional kooks merely stated that there were enough inconsistencies in the NIST investigation that warranted another look.
 
They are merely showing the evidence supporting their claims.
 
It's people like you and others who go off half cocked without being objective.

 

[777 fixer]

 
Your bunch of highly educated professional kooks merely stated that there were enough inconsistencies in the NIST investigation that warranted another look.
 
They are merely showing the evidence supporting their claims.
 
It's people like you and others who go off half cocked without being objective.

 
I don't think using logic and deductive reasoning falls under the category of going off half cocked.  Failing to see the glaring and rather obvious holes in their t"theory" andnot asking some basic questions about their claims shows a lack of the before mentioned traits.  

 

[delldude]

 
I don't think using logic and deductive reasoning falls under the category of going off half cocked.  Failing to see the glaring and rather obvious holes in their t"theory" andnot asking some basic questions about their claims shows a lack of the before mentioned traits.  

 
If you weren't going off half cocked, you would have seen and understood the glaring inconsistencies realized in the NIST investigation.
 
Logic and deductive reasoning and a lifetime in Architecture is why these 'kooks' pointed out inconsistencies in the first place.

 

[southwind]

 
Like I said, NIST said they found no explosive residue. The Architect group did in fact find explosive residue.....explain that away.

 
NIST said they did "NOT" test for explosive residue. I would imagine, in that case, it "WOULD" be hard to find explosive residue!
 
Yeah , you wild n' crazy conspiracy freaks............what's your beef with 3 buildings imploding "PERFECTLY", as if they were brought down by explosives!